Nicholas Winterton: I fully support the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) in his demand that our discussions within Iran should continue. Will the Foreign Secretary indicate what discussions he has had with those members of the Iranian political scene who recently contested an election and who will appear in the final round? Does he feel that there is sufficient confidence between us to negotiate sensibly and rationally about Iran's nuclear programme? Iran is a very important country in that part of the world; our ongoing negotiations are critical; and I believe that we carry a great deal of influence.

Jack Straw: For the sake of better accuracy in Hansard, I will repeat what the new Parliamentary Private Secretary to the hon. Member for the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk just said: "But he is an Arabist." [Interruption.] Now the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) says that the hon. Gentleman is unsound on these matters. Whether he is an Arabist or unsound, the hon. Gentleman is still a member of the shadow Cabinet.

Douglas Alexander: Before I heard his questions, I thought that my hon. Friend was going to offer his good wishes to the Prime Minister and inquire whether there were any positions for Private Parliamentary Secretaries in the Foreign Affairs team, but in light of his specific question I fear that I will have to disappoint him. The Council of International Development Ministers that took place just a couple of weeks ago in Brussels that makes a powerful case for how the European Union can act as a catalyst and as a force for good in the world. We saw an increase in commitments from the EU from $40 billion to $80 billion by 2010. That shows the scale of commitment not just of the British Government—we have an honourable record in increasing the money spent on international aid—but of member states throughout the European Union. It also sets a very challenging and a rich opportunity that the G8 can develop at the meeting in Gleneagles on 6 to 8 July, and it shows powerfully that if we work together at EU level we can increase our influence and do good in the world.

Mike O'Brien: In many instances, it will be possible by means of case management to deal with relatively complex cases. On 22 March, new proposals were introduced by the Lord Chief Justice to see whether we could use case management techniques to deal with some of these cases. However, the Government believe that the most complex cases need to be dealt with differently and that better case management alone will not suffice. The right hon. and learned Gentleman identified the problem in his question. He said that we should limit the counts on the indictment, which would prevent the full criminality of the issue being exposed before a jury. The seeds of the problem are evident in his question, as he is asking prosecutors to limit the extent of criminality so that it can be put before a jury. We want the full criminality to be exposed and justice to be properly done.

Mike O'Brien: My hon. Friend identifies a key problem with some serious and complex fraud trails. If they are likely to last six months or a year, many people will suffer enormous economic and personal injury if they have to serve on a jury throughout that period. Most juries are in panel for a two-week period. In serious fraud trials the period can be much, much longer and the economic damage that that can cause to companies and individuals is serious.
	It is important that we ensure that these cases are dealt with in a way that leads to proper justice being done. I am satisfied that the proposals that will be put forward by the Government will ensure that. There are safeguards and limits to undue use of the power. It will be for the judges and the Lord Chief Justice to look at each individual case and to be satisfied that it is necessary to try it without a jury.

Andrew MacKinlay: My right hon. Friend outlined the various stages and tests that a prosecution would have to go through, and it seemed to me that the central pillar was the consent and initiative of the Attorney-General. I put it to my right hon. Friend that, while I wish both him and the Attorney-General a long time in government, we may not always have a Labour or a liberal Government. We could have a Henry Brooke-type character in office, so we need safeguards to ensure that we do not introduce a new blasphemy law. What does the Home Secretary say to those who feel intensely about the failure of the Attorney-General to prosecute such things as the Life of Brian film or the Jerry Springer opera? It is important to reflect both on what might happen in respect of the future incumbency of the Attorney-General and on the frustrations of those who feel that there should be a prosecution when there is not one. How would the Home Secretary deal with those problems?

David Davis: I beg to move, To leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
	"this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill because, while the Bill recognises the problems caused by extremists seeking to stir up hatred against others on the grounds of their ethnic identity, by creating a new offence of inciting religious hatred, it will disproportionately curtail freedom of expression, worsen community relations as different religious and belief groups call for the prosecution of their opponents, create uncertainty as to what words or behaviour are lawful and lead to the selective application of the law in a manner likely to bring it into disrepute."
	I pick up immediately on the Home Secretary's final words. He pointed out that, effectively, this is the third time that this proposed legislation has been presented to the House. Therefore, it is important that we get it right and that we deal with it coolly and clinically. In view of the comments of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) and the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), I shall read an extract that was put into the record by Lord Alli in supporting the Government. He read out a verse from one of Hitler's most ardent opponents, Pastor Martin Neimoeller, which everyone will recognise. It reads:
	"First, they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a communist.
	Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist;
	Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist.
	Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.
	Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me".
	That is a famous verse and I suspect that everyone in the Chamber understands and agrees entirely with the sentiments that are expressed within it. I hope that the Home Secretary and the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton, when they read Hansard, will accept that.
	We all abhor discrimination and attempts to stir up hatred on whatever grounds. I am glad that the Minister for Policing, Security and Community Safety is in the Chamber, as I should like to respond to a striking contribution that she made to a previous debate. She claimed:
	"There is a difference between us and the Opposition. We feel that it is wrong to stir up hatred against people on the grounds of their religion. Clearly Opposition Members do not feel that that is wrong".—[Official Report, 7 February 2005; Vol. 430, c. 1224.]
	That argument is clearly absurd. Before Ministers throw around any more silly accusations, they should remember that the Bill's opponents include Liberty, the writers' organisation PEN, and many seasoned campaigners against discrimination—not least Lord Lester, who has 40 years experience of campaigning on race relations.
	As the Home Secretary suggested to at the end of his speech, we are not debating whether discrimination is right or wrong, but how we balance a belief in freedom and tolerance with the rights and interests of minorities. That balance is important and we do not believe that the Bill achieves it. The Bill is wrong in principle, it would be barely workable in practice and, arguably, it is unnecessary in any event. It has also raised expectations among minority communities, who are likely to be seriously disappointed law if the law were brought into effect. Above all, a basic principle is at stake. We believe that the best way to target someone who hates others because of what they believe is through the force of argument, rather than the law. Criminal law should be used to punish people who do injury to the person, the property or the liberty of the individual, not simply offend their beliefs or feelings. That is the crucial difference between the proposals in the Bill and the original piece of legislation that it seeks to amend.
	In 1986, the Conservative Government rightly sought to criminalise people who attempted to stir up hatred on the ground of race, because race is not something that someone chooses, as the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) pointed out. It is who they are—it is their very person. An attack on race is an attack on the individual. Religious belief is quite different—it is something that someone chooses or, indeed, chooses to opt out of. There are many different religions with competing claims and competing ways of life. It is entirely appropriate to debate the merits of each, to question the basis on which a religion is founded and, by implication, to challenge the way in which someone lives his life.

Charles Clarke: The difference is substantial. Section 8 of the Victoria Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001 makes it an offence for a person to engage in conduct that incites not only hatred against, but also serious contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule of, another person or class of people. The difference in definition is massive; it is not a minor difference of interpretation.

Alistair Carmichael: The right hon. Gentleman was absolutely right in the first place: he must have missed the point, because that was certainly not what I said. If he has the chance to consider the Official Report tomorrow, he will see that I said that questions of public policy and the boundaries that determine where such decisions should be made should be decided by this House. That is very different from saying that individual cases should be adjudicated in the way that the right hon. Gentleman was prompted to suggest.
	My concern is that where complaint is made, the Attorney-General risks being brought into the political question of whether proceedings should begin. These will be highly emotive and contentious questions that will further politicise and change the office of the Attorney-General in an unhelpful way.

Edward Garnier: Is the hon. Gentleman's point not even more important given that this is the third time the legislation has been considered? I assume, perhaps na-vely, that the Government have had some thoughts about what sort of guidance they would instruct the Attorney-General to produce.

Alistair Carmichael: I would like to make that assumption, too, but I wonder if the hon. and learned Gentleman and I are both slightly na-ve in proceeding on that basis. The Minister can tell us whether the guidance exists in draft form. If so, perhaps he will be able to furnish members of the Committee with it before we start next week. It would certainly illuminate our proceedings if that happened.
	I turn briefly to those who fear for artistic, as opposed to religious, expression—the comedians rather than the clerics. The Home Secretary has said that they will not be prosecuted. I do not have a problem with that; the right hon. Gentleman is probably right that such prosecutions are unlikely. Nevertheless, I remain concerned about the degree of self-censorship, and fear that the Bill will have some impact. If we are mainly about sending signals, prosecutions are unnecessary, and one signal that has clearly been picked up by the artistic community is that its freedom will be curtailed. The Home Secretary will have to give more serious thought to that problem than he has hitherto.
	It is incumbent on us as parliamentarians, in passing any piece of legislation, to consider the worst-case scenario. I am looking forward—in time, rather than in the sense of wanting something to happen—to circumstances in which we do not have a liberal Government and in which the Law Officers are substantially less liberal than at present. At that stage, the opportunity for abuse becomes immense. At some future stage, the Home Secretary and the Attorney-General might have a particular agenda or a beef with some religious group and in those circumstances the legislation would be open to abuse.

John Gummer: Sometimes, the person who follows a maiden speech has to search hard to find something to be polite about, but on this occasion the House heard a staggeringly good first speech. I am sure that the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Malik) will be listened to with pleasure and interest whenever he speaks. I have heard that said before, when it was not true, but I am certain that it is true this time. He recounted his personal experiences and the history of his constituency before making a profound and important contribution to the debate in a way that will make all of us believe that we have a worthy new MP for Dewsbury.
	My concern about the Bill relates to unintended effect. I agree with all that the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Malik) has said about the need for a tolerant society to become a society of acceptance. We should all learn much more about one another and from one another, and we should be prepared to understand more about the world through other people's experiences and deep understandings. I do not think that anyone could accuse me of having anything other than a belief in and a concern for religion, but I do not like Bills that, first, can define neither hatred nor religion satisfactorily.
	I am very worried particularly about the fact that religion itself is not defined. I used in an intervention the example of Scientology, which is not a religion in my view. It is a means of making money for a group of people. It was invented for that purpose, and Lafayette Ron Hubbard called it the Church of Scientology to get away with things that he could not have got away with if his organisation had been open in the way that other such organisations were. Under the Bill, it seems almost impossible, by such definitions as exist, for one to be able to say publicly what one needs to say about Scientology, without being in severe danger of being found to have stirred up hatred and contempt.
	I hate those people—no, of course, I do not hate them, which shows the problem with the word "hate". Decent people do not hate, but people who judge whether or not people hate may say that what is stirred up in them is hatred. That is the problem with the definition of hatred. None of us would like to be accused of either hating or stirring others to hate, but I find it very difficult not to feel very strongly about Jehovah's Witnesses who—believing the words of a crook, Charles Taze Russell—kill babies by not giving them blood transfusions. If I were to say that outside the House, it would be considered as stirring hatred. I am not doing that, but it is not me who decides whether I am stirring hatred; someone else decides that I might be stirring hatred in someone else by using those words.

John Gummer: I agree with my right hon. Friend, and the question that she asked, which the Home Secretary failed to answer correctly, was exactly to the point. If what the Home Secretary said was what the legislation said, there might be a different argument, but what he said the legislation said it does not say—or, at least, it says more than that.
	The same must be true of Satanists or witchcraft. There was a great deal of discussion about witchcraft organisations doing a whole range of things in certain churches. There is a certain religion in which it appears that babies stolen from their mothers have been passed off as a kind of miracle children. I am not suggesting that many people adhere to those beliefs, but I am suggesting that pretty tough words may need to be used about them, and the result of those words could well be that some of the people to whom they were addressed would consider that their use stirred up hatred against them. I merely say that that is a strong possibility.
	Those are examples of what might happen, whereas the Home Secretary has provided not a single example of what the Bill would stop. Labour Members must accept the fact that this is the first Bill of such seriousness on which the Home Secretary has come to the House without explaining the examples that led him to make this decision. I therefore go on to why people should be worried about the Bill.
	It is all right for some of the hon. Gentleman who have now left the Chamber to say that they want reassurance from various groups of Christians. During the past few months, in the town neighbouring my constituency—Ipswich—a group of Christians who have proclaimed their views in the streets for many years were ordered to go to the police station to explain why they should not be arrested for stirring up hatred. They had a very difficult time. They happen not to be a Christian group with whom I have much in common. They are a narrow group of rather old-fashioned believers of a Brethren type, but I will defend them for ever; they should have the right to proclaim their faith in Britain and not to be stopped and taken to the police station by the police. If that can be done under the present law, how much more likely that it could be done under the Bill? After all, if the Home Secretary is saying nothing else, he is saying that the Bill will make the law tougher. If it will not make the law tougher, why is he introducing it at all?

John Denham: There is of course incitement legislation already. If one were to publish a leaflet saying, "We don't want Jews living round here, let's drive them out", it would be caught under a section of our existing legislation that would not catch the same act if the word "Jews" were replaced by the word "Muslims". As has already been correctly pointed out, there is a range of legislation to deal with the incitement and harassment that can often apply in individual cases.
	In the past, however, the House has decided three things: first, in relation to race, that action against a group of people, as opposed to particular individuals, is so pernicious and corrupting that it should be outlawed; secondly, that the corrupting effect of racial violence or harassment is such that it should be an aggravated offence—we treat it differently from the same action against other groups; and, thirdly, only two years ago, that an act against someone on religious grounds should be explicitly an aggravated offence. The one thing that we have not yet done is to extend protection to a religious group. We have an entirely anomalous situation: because of case law, some groups, especially Jews and Sikhs, are protected by the law, but Muslims and Christians are not. My argument is that we should extend that protection to those groups.

Jamie Reed: I crave the indulgence of the House in interrupting such an important and enjoyable debate to deliver my maiden speech. Furthermore, as the first Jedi Member of this place, I look forward to the protection under the law that will be provided to me by the Bill. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Malik) for his convincing and searing testimony in support of the proposed legislation. It will be a privilege to serve alongside him.
	First and foremost, I pay tribute to my predecessor, the recently ennobled Dr. Jack Cunningham. For 35 years, Dr. Cunningham served Copeland with dedication, diligence, foresight and no small amount of flair. His example is that of what can be achieved by ordinary working-class children with the right opportunities, encouragement and ambition. Dr. Cunningham has left me with a solid legacy upon which I hope to build—record levels of employment in Copeland, huge investments in schools with accompanying increases in standards, improving public services and, in Whitehaven, a town that has been transformed.
	As a constituent, I, like many others, will miss Dr. Cunningham. However, as a friend and successor I know that he is, literally, not too far away from this place and that he will be on hand to give advice, both solicited and unsolicited, in the coming years. I hope sincerely that I can emulate his achievements.
	I wish to thank Thompson and Frances May Reed, without whose support, advice and example I would not be standing in the House today. It is a sincere privilege and pleasure to be a Member of the House. However, I am cautious of becoming that which many people refer to as a parliamentarian. I am well aware of how this environment can captivate those who work within it. It has the power to cajole Members into its privileged embrace and, in some instances, to encourage those very same Members to forget why it was that they fought to enter the House in the first place.
	I stand before the House as someone who has the sincere honour of representing the constituency of my birth, mindful that I am here to ensure that Parliament serves the needs of my constituents and not simply the needs of itself. I am genuinely proud to represent the people who I grew up with and the communities within which I grew up. They have placed an enormous amount of trust in me and I will do everything within my power to repay their faith.
	Without doubt, Copeland is the most beautiful constituency within the whole of England. My constituency—my home—can be found on the west Cumbrian coast. Wastwater, England's deepest lake and Scafell Pike, England's tallest mountain, reside within it. This extraordinary environment produces extraordinary people who in turn are capable of extraordinary achievements.
	From the village of Distington in the north to the town of Millom in the south, and through the mining villages of Pica, Lowca, Parton and Moresby, we can see the sort of community spirit that is all too rare in modern Britain—a community spirit that is based upon mutual support, shared experiences and a commitment to compassion and solidarity in times of need. Those villages represent that sorts of communities upon which our great nation was founded and the untapped potential that we still possess.
	Just south of those villages is the town of Whitehaven, once one of Britain's most prosperous and important ports, and today one of our hidden national treasures. The harbour dates back to 1664 and was for many years a major trading post with the new world. Those links to and with the United States continue to this day and are perhaps best illustrated by my informing the House that the grandmother of George Washington is buried in the grounds of Whitehaven's St. Nicholas church alongside her servant, an African slave.
	As a staging post for the young Jonathan Swift, the view of the town from the surrounding high ground is reputed to have provided the inspiration for Lilliput, the fictional land of "Gulliver's Travels". Further, the town's pre-eminent maritime reputation was recorded in the middle of the 19th century by the great American novelist Herman Melville in his epic book "Israel Potter", in which he chronicled the famous invasion of the town by the American continental navy during the opening years of the war of independence. As 2005 is the international year of the sea, there can be no better place within the UK to celebrate it than in Whitehaven. This weekend, in excess of 250,000 people will do just that as they flock from throughout the country to take part in this town's biennial maritime festival. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends, if they have the chance, to do the same.
	Leaving Whitehaven, we travel through the towns of Cleator Moor—home to Keir Hardie, Robert Owen and William Morris avenues, which perhaps gives a clue as to the politics of the town—and the medieval town of Egremont, which is now world famous for its crab fair and annual gurning championship. South of that lies Seascale, Calder Bridge, Ennerdale, Wasdale and Ravenglass, before we encounter the outstanding natural beauty of south Copeland and the villages of Waberthwaite, Bootle and Haverigg. The south of Copeland is known for its remarkable meats and delicacies and its superb locally produced beers, all of which are on a par with, or better than, anything that is produced on the continent.Until now, I have deliberately omitted to mention Santon Bridge, the venue for the internationally renowned biggest liar in the world competition. I have never been an entrant in that competition and my speech is not an application to take part in this year's event.
	It is only right that I now pay tribute to all of those exceptional men and women from my constituency who have served so honourably in our armed forces. This proud tradition continues to this day and I send my respect, gratitude and thanks to all those—and their families—who are in service on our behalf.
	I do not pretend to be the authentic voice of my generation, but as we prepare to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the end of the second world war I must, on behalf of my generation, offer a long-overdue gesture of thanks to that generation who fought against the tyranny of fascism. My generation owes all that it has to that golden generation of men and women. Our thanks may perhaps be best expressed by working to ensure that those who gave everything they had to ensure the survival and prosperity of my generation are now looked after properly by us and allowed to live their lives with the dignity and respect that they deserve in the embrace of a grateful nation.
	I have taken care to mention many, but by no means all, of the communities within my constituency, as those communities have selflessly served this country for centuries. In 1778, the townsfolk of Whitehaven repelled the invading forces of the American continental navy, led by a one-time son of the town and founder of the American fleet, John Paul Jones. That attack sent a tremor throughout the empire, proving that our island was not impenetrable and that the colonial rebels were serious about their intentions. That service for our country by the people of my town established an esprit de corps which has since been replicated throughout all the communities of my constituency, and remains so until this day.
	When the nation's appetite for coal and iron ore was at its peak, the men, women and children of Copeland gave their good health and often their lives to feed that hunger. My great grandfather, whose body still remains entombed alongside those of his friends and fellow workers in the ruins of Whitehaven's Haig pit, is one such example. The need for coal to fuel the development of the nation and the empire led to an undersea pit being sunk at Saltom, a feat of engineering akin to the construction of the channel tunnel. Work began in 1729 and by 1731 the pit had reached a depth of 456 ft. It represented the first attempt at undersea mining in England and was the deepest undersea mine ever at that time. It was described at the time by its architect and driving force, Carlisle Spedding as
	"perhaps the boldest thing that was ever undertaken."
	That was done in the service of our nation.
	During the second world war, a small west Cumbrian village produced munitions for the war effort. Following the end of the war and the actions of the US Congress in withdrawing from co-operation on an Anglo-American nuclear research programme, this area, known as Sellafield, was chosen as the site at which our country should produce materials for our nuclear deterrent. It was done in the service of our nation. Soon thereafter Sellafield became home to the world's first commercial-scale nuclear power station. That, too, was done in the service of our nation. The passage of time in no way lessens the value of that service or the relevance of those feats. Far from being a distant folk memory, the legacy of those achievements can still be seen from Copeland.
	The House will be aware that the UK's nuclear liabilities, from both civil and nuclear military programmes, in the service of this nation remain within my constituency, and that the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority was rightly established by the Government to deal with those liabilities. More than 60 per cent. of all the jobs in my constituency stem directly and indirectly from Sellafield. Consequently, the future of the site and the economic future of my constituency are inextricably linked. Copeland is home to what is probably the single largest concentration of nuclear engineering, operational and technical skills anywhere in the world. That unique skills base represents a priceless national asset and it must be utilised and built upon for the well-being of Britain as a whole, not just my constituency.
	Debates in the House about the nuclear industry, particularly the parts based in my constituency, have too often been characterised by wilful ignorance and knowing distortion of the facts. I will never stand idly by while hon. Members play politics with the livelihood of my constituents. For as long as I remain in the House, I hope to be able to contribute a factual voice of reason, not only in this but in many other debates in the years ahead. There will soon come a time when my constituency will ask for its service to the nation be recognised and rewarded. When that time arrives, I will work to secure the support of the House to ensure that that voice is heard and the debt honoured.
	Earlier, I made reference to Whitehaven's regrettable involvement in the slave trade—a practice unquestionably built upon racial hatred. Like many constituencies, Copeland is now an increasingly multiracial, multicultural area and it is the better for it. Legislation such as this Bill is required to ensure that Britain not only safeguards but improves its record on protecting civil rights and liberties. It will also further cultural understanding and social integration. Against a backdrop of rising race-related crime in some areas—Northern Ireland in particular, if the figures published yesterday are to be believed—and the growth of far-right parties in the UK, it is difficult to present a coherent objection to the Bill. I am satisfied that, provided it is undertaken in a sensible, sensitive and effective manner, the implementation of the law envisaged by the Bill would not result in critics' fears being realised. Instead, it would complement existing legislation while assisting in the development of a culture of mutual respect and acceptance among all our many faiths and—

Ian Paisley: I congratulate the hon. Member for Copeland (Mr. Reed) on his maiden speech. I knew his predecessor for many years, as he served as Minister of Agriculture, and I have had many agricultural interests in my day as a chairman in the Stormont Administration. I always found the hon. Gentleman's predecessor friendly, interested in the matters that I brought to him and a good constituency worker. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will follow that path. I congratulate him on making his maiden speech from the Government Benches. I, too, made my maiden speech from those Benches. It was a unique affair, because I spoke so loudly that I stopped proceedings in the House of Lords. I thought that that was to my credit, but evidently it was not. However, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his speech, and I am glad that he looks forward to his time in the House. I have been here 35 years, and if he is here as long he will deserve his pension.
	This has been an interesting and timely debate, and the House has grasped what we are up against. I do not agree with the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) about everything, but I certainly agreed with her today. If we cannot defend what we believe to be the right faith we are not worthy of it, whatever faith it is. We have a right to defend it with the gifts that God has given us. We have a right to quote our historical background, and what has emerged from it. I do not need to put up a sign saying that I am a Protestant, as everyone knows that. I believe that everyone who has a faith should be allowed to preach it, declare it, defend it, and stand up for it. There should not be any curtailment of such activities.

Gary Streeter: I agree with the hon. Lady that such behaviour is utterly unacceptable. The people responsible should be arrested by the police and charged under existing legislation, which they most certainly could be. I am sad to say that in some parts of the country the police do not provide the service that we used to experience, which is another matter. However, I am convinced that the law already exists to deal with that situation and that we do not need this Bill.
	When we discussed this matter in December, I asked the former Home Secretary what we are trying to prevent, and this was his answer:
	"We are trying to stop groups of people who are prepared verbally, communicating through writing or the internet, to incite others to hate because of someone's faith."—[Official Report, 7 December 2004; Vol. 428, c.1056.]
	He was pressed to provide specific examples, but, like the Home Secretary today, he could not do so. If we are legislating to restrict, or possibly restrict, freedom of speech, we should certainly know why we are doing so and the mischief that we are trying to prevent.
	Thirdly, like the hon. Member for Nottingham, North, I am concerned about unintended consequences. He cited a couple of possible unintended consequences of the Bill, and I shall provide another. Extremists exist on the fringes of a number of different religions in this country. They do not come from particular faith groups, and I am sad to say that Christian fundamentalist extremists are present in this country today. Many of my constituents were offended by the BBC programme, "Jerry Springer—The Opera"—it offended me, too, but that is my personal problem—but some of the activity by Christian extremists against that programme was reprehensible. It was outrageous to give out the home telephone number of the programme's producer and encourage people to ring it at all hours of day and night, which was not a Christian response to the issue.
	If we are not careful, one faith group will see another faith group becoming militant, and it will up the ante. If we are not careful, arguments that are currently confined to our pulpits, our streets and our debating chambers will be taken on to the barricades and into the courtrooms, which will ratchet up the whole process. If one faith group uses the Bill to put pressure on the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Attorney-General to prosecute in a certain case, we know that retaliation will follow. Before we know it, we will have holy wars in this country's courtrooms, which will be unedifying. The Bill will not reduce racial and religious tension or increase tolerance—it will do the opposite. If an organisation such as Justice can see that point, the Government should, too.

Evan Harris: The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that I have found the reference in the evidence to the House of Lords Select Committee on religious offences to which the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), referred. A letter on page 43 of volume 2 from Detective Chief Inspector David Tucker lists documents including National Front leaflets calling for "No Mosques, No Muslims". Such leaflets, even if they were not already caught by the public order legislation that was used in that case, would be caught by the extension of the law on racial hatred to cover race hate going under the proxy of religious words. That is why even the examples that the Minister cited would be covered by the Lester amendment, as they rightly should be.

Anne Snelgrove: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to raise in this Adjournment debate education issues that are of great concern to my constituents in west Swindon. The big issue for primary education in that area is surplus places and the need to demonstrate that action is being taken to reduce them. That there is a problem of surplus places is not in dispute; parents, teachers and the local authority accept the fact. There is, however, a dispute over how much of a problem exists and what action should be taken.
	Swindon borough council is a small unitary authority with responsibility for education. Recently, the local education authority received the good news that it was no longer in special measures, and that there were no schools in special measures in the authority. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the LEA, its officers and the schools and teachers on that achievement. It represents a significant step forward and will undoubtedly mean better education and life chances for all the children in Swindon, including those in west Swindon.
	Reorganisation of schools is always difficult. I have personal experience of this in my previous career as a local education adviser, and in my political career as vice-chair of Berkshire's education committee in the 1990s. While I was a chair of governors, I oversaw the successful merger of an infants school and a junior school into a primary school. That was difficult to achieve, even with the support of the staff of both schools and of the majority of parents, with several issues continuing to resonate 18 months later at the new primary school's Ofsted inspection. All this experience has led me to the understanding that school reorganisation can destabilise even seemingly robust school communities. In more fragile communities, it can be a disaster.
	My experience has also led me to believe that a number of principles need to be in place for successful reorganisations to occur. First, the educational reasons must be absolutely sound and honest for the current intake of children, and for future intakes. Secondly, the figures must add up, and must command the confidence of the wider community. Thirdly, there must be no hidden agenda on anyone's part, including that of local councillors, and nothing should be said or done to encourage the belief that there is. Fourthly, the confidence of the majority of parents must be maintained throughout the process and consultation must begin at an early stage.
	TeacherNet, the widely respected Department for Education and Skills website for teachers and education providers, outlines best practice in reorganisations. A successful primary school reorganisation involves a number of factors, it says. First, the ground should be prepared and a set of guiding principles should be developed to underpin the approach, covering preferred size of schools, maximum travelling time of pupils, triggers for school review based on admission numbers, and criteria for demanding action at one school rather than another. Secondly, options should be identified and all the options should be examined before decisions are made. They might include a reduction in accommodation, alternative uses of accommodation such as extended services, changes in admission numbers, and amalgamation or closure. Lastly, partners should be involved. Key partners include parents, housing departments and trusts, planning and environment, transport, dioceses and many other groups.
	TeacherNet makes clear that local education authorities should
	"anticipate and respond to parents' concerns about the options being proposed."
	As I shall demonstrate, I am not convinced that those principles were followed in the west Swindon reorganisation for all the schools involved.
	The west Swindon consultation involved several public meetings, six of which I attended. My experience of the meetings did not fill me with confidence that the consultation was being conducted in an unbiased and open way. At two of the meetings, local Conservative councillors reassured parents that the school where the meeting was being held would be "all right" and that they had nothing to worry about. As these were public meetings, there were parents present from other schools who did not receive the same assurance at the public meeting on their school site. Naturally, that did not fill my constituents with confidence, and word quickly spread throughout the community that it was a paper exercise and councillors had already made up their minds about which schools would close.
	The outcome of the consultation was that one school, Salt Way, was earmarked for closure from January 2006 and further discussions were to be held about three others, Toothill, Freshbrook and Windmill Hill. The decision on Salt Way was leaked to the local paper, so parents and teachers discovered that the school was likely to close during the Easter holiday break. That is not a good way to find out about the future of one's child's education or one's job. At Salt Way, most of the permanent staff have understandably found other jobs and will be leaving at the end of this term. I gather from discussions last week with the director of education that only two permanent members of the teaching staff remain, one of whom is on long-term sick leave. It has also become apparent that the closure of the school by January 2006 looks unachievable because there are no places in nearby primary schools for most of the children who currently attend Salt Way.
	The current solution is to bring in teachers from other schools on secondments to teach the children. The process has resulted in plummeting staff morale, disruption to children's education and a question mark over when and if the school will close. Only tonight I was told by one of the parents that the LEA had announced at a meeting this afternoon that the school would close in August 2006 and that an extension would be built at Shaw Ridge school to take the extra pupils. There has been no exploration with parents of the alternatives to closure. On behalf of my constituents, I am genuinely disappointed by the high-handedness of the approach and sad that I learned about it through a parent.
	The school has been left dangling, and as its representative I must do all that I can to ensure that the children's education is protected. I ask the Minister to look into the issue for me as it has ramifications for the other three schools whose future is also under discussion. The situation must not be allowed to happen twice.
	I hope that, from my description, the Minister will understand my concern about the robustness of the surplus place figures used by Swindon LEA. To announce a school closure consultation and then discover that there are not enough places for the existing children to go to is not best practice, and I ask the Minister to examine the figures that have been produced. One of the difficulties may lie in the net capacity figures. Over the years, temporary classrooms have been added to west Swindon schools to accommodate expanding pupil numbers. They contribute to the net capacity figures, but many of the classrooms are past their sell-by date and could easily be taken out of commission.
	In addition, many schools, including Salt Way, have done what the local education authority and the Department for Education and Skills asked of them—converted surplus classes to IT suites, pre-school groups, libraries and parent and community rooms. All those are needed, particularly in our more deprived wards, and all are good practice, but it strikes me and the schools as unfair that those spaces are then used to calculate how many children a school could and should accommodate.
	The reality is that the schools cannot take up to the pupil numbers required by the DFES calculations. The situation that the Salt Hill pupils are in demonstrates that. In theory, there should be room in neighbouring schools—after all, the figures demonstrate that—but in practice there is not because the spaces are not classrooms.
	Moving on to the other schools under threat of closure, I will first refer to Toothill. Toothill is the most deprived ward in west Swindon and Toothill school serves that community. It has the third highest proportion of children in the borough with English as an additional language. Its unit for children with moderate learning difficulties has been integrated successfully into the main stream. It has a successful buddy mentoring scheme that has reduced bullying and made the playground a good place to be for all children. There are strong links between the school and the local community, with the school seen as the centre for community activities, including the west Swindon family centre. TeacherNet advises that local authorities should investigate the impact of the loss of such an institution on communities, but there was no mention of that in the consultation. I wish to be reassured that the LEA has considered that issue.
	The local community in Toothill feels under attack because of the threat to the school. From my own knowledge of the area, I believe that significant numbers of vulnerable children would be at risk if the school were to close or to merge on another site. Because of the design of the estate, it would mean a difficult journey to reach another school.
	The school governors and parents have worked with the LEA throughout the consultation and are aware of the falling rolls issue. They have a number of old and decrepit temporary buildings that could be taken out of commission, reducing the space, but they also have accommodation problems in their main building and desperately need a new school building. They tell me that they are "up for anything" in terms of the Government's extended schools and child first policy initiatives. I hope that Swindon borough council will be able to work proactively with the school to ensure its continued future in serving a vulnerable community.
	Now I come to the most difficult aspect of the whole reorganisation. I do not envy the LEA's task as Freshbrook and Windmill Hill schools are round the corner from each other, yet face very different issues and, despite being neighbours, serve very different communities. Freshbrook's rolls have fallen, while Windmill Hill's are robust and show no surplus places. In fact, the school is slightly over-subscribed and parents are passionate in their support of the school, as was demonstrated in the large numbers of Windmill Hill parents' responses to the consultation, but the school is in temporary premises and was built when pupil numbers on the Freshbrook estate exceeded those planned. When I say "temporary premises", those are the Rolls-Royce of temporary classrooms, having been lovingly maintained and improved over the years.
	Freshbrook school has recently come out of special measures, on which I congratulate the head teacher and staff. However, a significant number of parents removed their children from Freshbrook during its recent difficulties and placed them in Windmill Hill. Therefore, we immediately have a problem in that those parents' memories of Freshbrook are of a school where their children failed. Fair or unfair, that is the situation. Suggestions by the local authority to close Windmill Hill, an over-subscribed school that has been successful for many years, or to merge it with Freshbrook, a newly successful school, have been met with great fear by the parents. There is such a feeling against those options that the LEA needs to reconsider them and meet its obligations to consult parents in detail on the proposal.
	Another solution must be found. DFES guidance suggests alternative avenues for reorganisation such as federation, collaboration and co-operation. The main rationale of those is to raise standards and to address some of the problems of falling rolls, but under them a school maintains its separate identity. A wide variety of different arrangements for schools working together are available and it is right to ask whether all the options were considered by the council.
	There are two other issues that I ask the Minister to consider. Throughout the consultation, parents were presented with arguments that Government policy is for two-form entry schools. I can find no reference to that anywhere. In fact, the DFES position is that the responsibility lies with local government. DFES guidance says that primary schools of about 420 pupils, which are two-form entry, or of 210 pupils, which are one-form entry, are the most efficient and offer a critical mass that promotes more efficient teaching and learning. I hope that the Minister will agree that one-form entry schools offer choice for parents and should be encouraged. One size does not fit all and we need a diverse mix in Swindon. Keeping one-form entry schools could remove the need to close schools.
	Parents were also told that the Government's extended schools initiative means that some schools in west Swindon need to close. I hope that the Minister will tell me and parents that this is stuff and nonsense. My postbag has been full of letters from concerned parents who think that one of our flagship proposals will lead to the closure of their school. An email that I received from a parent at the weekend stated:
	"My concerns are around the need to close successful schools in order to raise the necessary funding to build new extended schools. I don't believe this was the intention behind the government's proposals. If insufficient funding has been made available to the council for implementing extended schools without these drastic measures then I don't support their implementation. Otherwise the council is using the extended school proposals as a way of closing schools for economic reasons."
	Some of the issues that have arisen in the council's consultation on primary education in west Swindon are the direct result of interpretations of Government policy and initiatives. There is a case, therefore, for us to explore and answer, and there may be action that we in this place need to take, as well as action that Swindon borough council needs to take in my constituency.
	I hope that I have made the Minister aware of my great unease at the way in which this consultation process has been carried out. I ask him to look at the decision to close Salt Way and at the consultation with the schools and the LEA. I ask him to remember that our education policy of extended schools and one-form or two-form entry schools needs to be explained properly and thoroughly to the LEA. I want to reassure my constituents and the LEA that I intend to work proactively with them to find a solution to this problem. I hope that they will meet me and my constituents halfway. It is my constituents for whom I have the greatest concern, along with their children's education.

Phil Hope: I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Anne Snelgrove) on securing this debate. She spoke very knowledgably and forcefully on her constituents' behalf, and she clearly has considerable personal experience of the issues that she raised. I am certainly aware of the interest that people living in Swindon are showing in the current review of primary school provision in west Swindon.
	The Government are committed to continuing the drive to raise standards in education, so it will come as no surprise that we support the council's stated aims for the review, which are to provide high-quality education, to embrace the extended schools agenda—I will say more about that later—and to provide wide and all-encompassing community provision in west Swindon schools.
	The Department's five-year strategy for children and learners, following on from the primary document, entitled "Excellence and Enjoyment—A Strategy for Primary Schools", sets out the success story of primary education, with many schools delivering very high-quality education. I am pleased to say that we have seen impressive strides forward in literacy and numeracy in recent years, and teaching has improved in every single curriculum subject in primary schools since 1997.
	Although we have already made considerable progress, we recognise the need to provide all primary pupils with a quality primary education. I regret that there is an unacceptable variation in performance between schools. Authorities are encouraged to consider this when determining proposals under a review of provision. I am pleased to say that primary standards in Swindon are improving overall and are now moving in an upwards direction. There have been improvements this year of 4 percentage points in key stage 2 English and maths, and of 1 percentage point in science.
	As we have just heard, Swindon council is reviewing primary school places across the whole authority, due to surplus places in the sector. My hon. Friend pointed out at the beginning of her speech that the problem of surplus places is recognised and is accepted as being part of the issue that needs to be dealt with. Swindon's school organisation plan projects a decrease in pupil numbers of 4.5 per cent. overall in the next five years, resulting in a level of surplus places of no less than 16 per cent. in 2008 if no action is taken. Following a consultation exercise on improving the education provision in west Swindon, completed in March, the education partnership board agreed to a pre-statutory consultation on the closure of Salt Way primary school and further discussions about the way forward for three other primary schools— Freshbrook, Toothill and Windmill Hill.
	As a result of the pre-statutory consultation, the education partnership board will, on 30 June 2005—in nine days' time—consider a recommendation to close Salt Way primary school with effect from 1 September 2006, together with a linked proposal to expand Shaw Ridge primary school from the same date. I am not aware of any meeting or decision taken today to that effect, though she mentioned it in her speech. I understand that there has been a visit from Ofsted inspectors today, and I am not sure whether that might have created some confusion. I am sure that my hon. Friend will find out more when she returns to her constituency. Shaw Ridge primary school is in the same planning area as Salt Way primary school and places will be required to accommodate pupils. Statutory notices will then need to be issued to implement the proposals.
	The outcome of discussions about the three other primary schools—Freshbrook, Toothill and Windmill Hill—will be reported to the education partnership board on 22 September 2005, which may lead to pre-statutory and statutory consultation, if appropriate.
	My hon. Friend referred to staffing. I understand from the authority that staff are now being appointed at Salt Way primary for one year, in the first instance, pending decisions on the future of the school. I appreciate that there is inevitably a period of uncertainty for everyone involved, as my hon. Friend mentioned, and I would encourage the local authority to continue to give active support to the governing body of the school during this difficult period.
	On the issue of school organisation, the Government wish to encourage changes to local school provision that will boost standards and opportunities for young people, while matching school place supply as closely as possible to pupil and parental needs and wishes. The Education Act 1996 places a duty on each local education authority to ensure that sufficient school places exist to meet the needs of the local population in order to promote high standards of pupil attainment. If an authority decides to reorganise provision, decisions are not taken by Ministers, but made locally, which is what Swindon council is currently doing. The proposals for the schools mentioned have not yet moved into the statutory phase of the process. In view of my hon. Friend's concerns about the process, I would like to say more about how it is undertaken.
	First, all interested parties must be consulted before proposals are published; they must be provided with sufficient information and allowed adequate time. I listened carefully to my hon. Friend's comments on how she saw it happening in Swindon. On deciding to proceed with closure proposals for individual schools, formal notices must be published in a local newspaper, posted at the main entrances of schools named in the proposals and placed in another conspicuous local area. There is then a six-week period for people to submit their representations in support of, or against, the proposals, except in the case of a school in special measures where one month applies.
	If the authority has published the proposals and there are no objections, it may proceed and implement them. In all other cases, such as when objections are received, they are referred to the school organisation committee, which is made up of five or six groups each representing major stakeholders in the provision of education. Each group has one vote and must consider all the evidence in line with the guidance issued by the Secretary of State before reaching a decision. After that, if a unanimous decision cannot be reached, the case is referred to the independent schools adjudicator for a final decision.
	Importantly, as my hon. Friend noted, the guidance for those publishing and deciding proposals for changes to local school organisation makes it clear that the Government are committed to greater personalisation and choice, with learners and parents at centre stage. However, that must be set in the context of raising standards.
	Our guidance is that decisions must be made in the light of a range of factors, including the potential impact on local standards, the contribution to diversity, views of interested parties and cost effectiveness. We expect authorities to take full account of our offer on primary education, as set out in the five year strategy, when planning for primary school provision.
	On the specific issue of the review of primary schools in west Swindon, surplus places can represent a poor use of resources that could be used more effectively to support schools in raising standards. In the light of a downward trend in the number of pupils in primary education, that is a concern both nationally and locally. We have developed, in conjunction with the Audit Commission, a web-based toolkit offering a range of practical advice and guidance on dealing with falling rolls, as has happened in Swindon.
	As I said earlier, I understand that Swindon's school organisation plan, published last year, identified a potential increase in surplus places in the west of Swindon and hence the need for a review. The latest Ofsted report for Swindon LEA stated that the authority was now making good progress in this area and that planning was satisfactory. It did, however, mention the high level of surplus places in primary schools in the west of Swindon.
	Along with the need to remove surplus places, the 2004 Ofsted inspection of Salt Way primary school identified that the school had serious weaknesses, especially in leadership and management. Although it provided an acceptable standard of education for its pupils, it was not effective enough. As I said earlier, Ofsted inspectors were due to visit the school again today, but it is for individual authorities to decide whether, and how, they reduce levels of surplus places taking into account local circumstances, including school performance as well as geographical and social factors.
	My hon. Friend asked about extended schools and their use in these circumstances. I emphasise that extended schools are an important element of the Government's commitment to primary education. In embracing the extended schools agenda, Swindon council is implementing the Government's vision on what schools can offer their communities, as expressed in our publication last week of the extended schools prospectus.
	As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in her announcement, the prospectus sets out how schools can develop additional services for families. We know that schools are at the heart of our communities, and it makes sense to extend the services that they offer beyond the traditional school day.
	By the year 2010, all children under 14 who want it will have access to breakfast and after-school clubs that offer exciting activities from 8 am to 6 pm. That will give children the opportunity to keep fit and healthy, to acquire new skills and build on what they learn during the school day, as well as to have fun. I am sure that my hon. Friend will be pleased to see that aspiration and commitment implemented in extended schools in her constituency and around the country.
	In west Swindon, the LEA proposes that, if a decision is made to close Salt Way primary school, the nursery would remain, with the feasibility of providing services to children and families being considered for the site.
	We welcome the signs of positive improvement in the education system within Swindon, and early signs of progress on implementing the every child matters agenda. The aims of the west Swindon primary review appear to support that improvement. Swindon's education partnership board has an independent chair appointed jointly by a former Secretary of State and the council, and it has had a positive effect on educational progress in the council area. The latest report from Ofsted, as part of the October 2004 corporate governance inspection, reported continued overall progress in education.
	I want to refer to capital funding, which my hon. Friend mentioned this evening. Of course, the Government are supporting the raising of standards with unprecedented investment in schools. Capital investment will reach more than £5 billion in 2005–06, and will increase further to £6.3 billion in 2007–08. Primary and secondary schools receive funding under existing programmes to provide repairs and improvements. In addition, our proposals for strategic investment include a long-term commitment to deliver 21st century learning facilities in primary schools.
	The Chancellor announced in the 2005 Budget that the £150 million of new investment in 2008–09—rising to £500 million in 2009–10—will form part of a 15-year programme of primary school funding. Along with other capital funding already in the system, all primary schools will be maintained or, indeed, transformed. That funding has been made available in support of the Government's every child matters and extended schools agendas.
	In short, having listened carefully to my hon. Friend's concerns—I am sure that people outside the House will listen to those concerns as well—we believe that the Government have in place a framework that seeks to address her concerns. We have a primary strategy and the five-year strategy for children and learners, which set out our plans for the future of primary education. We have established a framework for local decision making on school organisation that places decision making in the community that those involved serve and know. We have taken robust action to drive up standards in all schools, and we have greatly increased the capital available for investment in school buildings. I hope that, with the commitment of parents, the education authority and, indeed, my hon. Friend, the framework that we have put in place will ensure that the transition process that is happening in her constituency achieves the best outcome for the people who matter most—the children of her constituency.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes past Eleven o'clock.